i understood by the very conclusion word "æœ‰æ— éƒ½æ²¡æœ‰" :) know?
He at first use to teach Ch'an, hence some koan teaching are brought to pureland teaching. need to over see all his teachings to understand. just see here and there, cannot understand wan. really.
Oh .. so his talks are all just koans not dharma talks ? How did you know that he was using a Chan style during the talk and when is is not ? Did he tell you or did you assume?
I have went through his teachings, there are the very good parts and also the very unbuddhistic parts. I don't see a need to demonize Ven Jingkong and only point out his faults and forget all the right teachings he gives. However, I do see a need for him to be eradicated and given attention to when it go aganist the very core teachings of Buddhism and Pureland teachings.
But in your case, you are believing "everything ven jingkong said is true and right, cannot be wrong and we cannot critrize his teachings" mentality.
See here and there cannot understand? what are you talking ? then you understand ? How sure are you? Or did ven Jingkong told you himself or by personal "realisation" or "assumptions"?
Buddhism is very simple ... take refuge in the triple gems and follow the teachings of the Buddha, practise it and share it. no need God, Jesus, Laozi, Mary, Mohd, Bible, Quran to come into the buddhist picture ...
weeshun are you that clone who changed faith as if changing underwear?
So yr excuse of using finger ponint moon analogy cannot work to cover up for him saying "God" is not god and but a name og God. You say God is not God, you say not God is God, Buddha is God but God is not Buddha and God and Buddha is actually inherent and empty and emtpy is actually not empty by just name as empty and there is not real name of empty, its nature and but when u say nature and its actually not nature but only a phonoenma ..and so on ....
æœ‰æ— éƒ½æ²¡æœ‰
没有其实是有
�是说有�是有
说�是有其实是没有
没有�是有和没有而�是�相
�相�是�相，说�是其实是
è¯´æ˜¯ä¹Ÿæ ¹æœ¬ä¸�是 and so on .....
Is this the kind of discussion you are going on round ???
Originally posted by WeeShun:you are entitled to your own belief, nobody can change anyone. It is only through proper reasoning and if your case, your "reasoning" comes not from a Buddhist viewpoint but from your own personal view, what more can I do ? This is happening because your foundation upon Buddhism is not built through basic tenets but through a parallel and similarity with other religion level.
First you accuse me of being intolerant and uncompassionate to other religions and after that you found no evidence of me aganist any other religons then now youiu start accusing me of paying lip service. If the purpose of our exhcnage here is to "win over" someone, then it would be completely useless, I am saying this to you and myself, because the basic motivation of exchanging here is for each other to reason and exlpore to truth by each of our further investigations.
To a Buddhist who knows God as the highest? We would still tell them, a right view should be established, Buddha is not God. We would not start compromising and agreeing with them that Buddha is God, this is not even a skillfull mean here. And the Greatest problem here now is "There is only One true God, it appears as Buddha in india, kongzi in china, jesus in ....." Such beleifs are not even right to start with. Do a research on 净空怪论 on gooogle, you will be able to read many other people's comments both positive and negative and its up to you to make your own decision, but let me remind you, our moderator Eternalnow had said clearly that a "Almighty creator God" is considered as a false view and not allowed in this forums, are you trying to saying EternalNow is being intolerant or embracing the basic tenets of Buddhism?
Also Buddha nature and God is not parallel, the Buddha did not teach this either. Infact, Buddha nature (Ven Jing Kong touched on Dharma nature not Buddha nature) it again is his own assumption tha "Buddha nature" is God.
Further, you claim that I take being Buddhist for granted which is not true because as a Buddhist, I seek refuge and rely only on the Buddha and his teachings and not other teachings. On the same time as a serious purelanders, i would only rely in Amituofo but not Bible and Quranic teachings to gain rebirth in Pureland. Can You please tell me, which Pureland Teaching or Pureland Master told us that we can rely on bible and quran to gain rebirth in Amituofo??
Again, if you find nothing wrong with Ven Jing Kong teachngs, Can you please explicty tell me what's wrong with YI Guan Tao???? There teachings is almost totally same as Ven Jing Kong now.
Recommending other people's scripture? This is not the problem now, Buddhists are very open minded people, if their teachings are not aganist morality, Buddhism have no reason to be aganist them and their scriptures but this is not equalvalient to mixing them into Buddhist practises, in the case of relying on bible and quran for rebirth in Pureland.
Again, i ask .. is there anything wrong for a Buddhist to solely seek refuge and practise only the Buddha and his teachings?
Lastly, you accuse me of hearsay and wanted "evidence" I gave you evidence and you know find new excuse, this is perfect example of peole who cannot analyse. But luckily people like "realization" can speak from a neutral point of view corresonponding to Buddhist teachings and also "dawnlight" who held up his/her promise to "shutup" on Mck issue but he/she also went further by clarifying what's wrong with Ven Jingkong after watching the video. This is what I call, investigation and not blind belief.
In Buddhism, investigation is always encouraged. It is easy to correspond anything to your own mind but hard to reconcile with Buddhism. I suggest you go back to the basic tenets of the Buddhist Faith.
Namo Amituofo ~
Weychin,
I have always have peace and respect for all other non buddhist religious teachings. Did i ever slandered aganist any of them?
But mind, having respect for them and importing them and their beliefs into Buddhism is another issue.
As a buddhist, I enter a taoist temple, I have no qualms making a simple bow with clasped hands.
As a buddhist, I attend a church, I have no problem sitting there listening to the pastor's sermon and seeing them worship their God in full faith.
As a buddhist, I attend a mosque, I have no problem wearing their required outfit and sitting beside them to see them worship their God.
absolutely no problem ...
But as a buddhist, I would not start praying to bring taoist deities back to my home and start worshipping them. I will not import an almighty God to Buddhist teachings nor start bring them into our buddhist tenets or teachings. Why? becos I am a Buddhist, I follow the Buddha and his teachings ~ is it so hard?
Tolerance and mixing up every religion into one bowl is 2 difft issues.
I know who is weeshun is liao. that christian guy with many clones, converted to buddhist, then went back to christian faith again.
weychin, tolerance means to respect other religions and their teachings sincerely. However tolerance does not mean to import other religious teachings into buddhism.
Buddhism has its own set of teachings and to follow the Buddha's teachings is not an issue of bring exclusive or inclusive. But for Pureland teachings, yes we are quite exclusive that only the recital in Amituofo will gain rebirth in Pureland not by bibical or quranic truths.
The focus should be on Buddha, Buddhism and Buddhists. what's there to distort to justify my views?? kindly point out.
weychin,
According to the people of Buddha's time, Brahma was the highest expression. When the Buddha attained enlightenment, he deny being Brahma but merely said I am Buddha.
so do you agree that God is not Buddha nature and Buddha nature is not God? If you can agree on that, I can apologise with no reservations.